Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: brainglitch on June 03, 2012, 11:30:10 PM
-
OK.....
I gather that from my defense of Bishop Fellay I have not exactly been the most popular poster around here recently. I am in fact quite amazed that I have not yet been banned.
However, I am not the dogmatic Fellay supporter that some people think I am (nor am I do I attend the novus ordo, despite the attempts of sedevacantist posters on this forum to smear me with such an accusation). I have reservations about any kind of "agreement". I like and trust Fellay, but I think he may be making a mistake. I tend to think that Williamson and Mallerais might be right, that we must wait for a better time.
However, I do have this question, and it honestly is troubling me. If the Pope gives the Society full and complete freedom to criticize Vatican II, while simultaneously giving us canonical recognition and full freedom to operate-how do we refuse? I heard a sermon today by Fr. Rostand-a very good sermon, by a priest I greatly respect- that said, in essence that that is what a recognition would imply. How do we in good conscience refuse that?
The only alternative is to go sedevacantist-something that I would never do for fear of losing my immortal soul. Not because of SSPX "conditioning" or any other such BS, but because I have known too many people who started out with good intentions who became bitter, angry, uncharitable shells of their former selves after embracing it.
This is not intended to be a vanity post. I would just like to hear some honest opinions, both pro and con. The fashionable thing to do on this forum right now is to constantly bash Fellay, call him a heretic, a traitor, a modernist, etc. Will this forum at least admit the possibility that he might be right? Or at least allow those who think Fellay might be right to speak freely without being banned?
-
If the Pope gives the Society full and complete freedom to criticize Vatican II, while simultaneously giving us canonical recognition and full freedom to operate-how do we refuse? I heard a sermon today by Fr. Rostand-a very good sermon, by a priest I greatly respect- that said, in essence that that is what a recognition would imply. How do we in good conscience refuse that?
Brainglitch, if the deal were that simple, the Pope would simply rubber-stamp the SSPX in a unilateral (one-sided) manner and be done with it. Why the need for negotiations or doctrinal preambles?
I regret to say that you are incredibly naive if you believe this.
If canonical recognition involved no compromises on the part of the SSPX, and preserved complete freedom for the SSPX to operate, who in the world would be against it?
Unfortunately, this is certainly not the case.
I'm sorry you haven't been following things more closely, but some of us are more up-to-speed with what's going on than you. You can't blame us for being more well-informed.
-
The contents of sermons has been gradually changing to get people ready for the planned transition. I noticed it even during the time I attended society masses, and it's been a couple years now.
-
Brainglitch, why are you so ardently anti-novus ordo????
-
If the Pope gives the Society full and complete freedom to criticize Vatican II, while simultaneously giving us canonical recognition and full freedom to operate-how do we refuse?
But he's not giving us that. Did you not read where Cardinal Koch said that the Society must accept Vatican II and its teachings on Jews, and that Vatican II is "binding on all Catholics"?
Your question has been posed by many other Fellay-supporting SSPXers of the "wait and see" variety, but the problem with the question is that it is not a realistic one. People who continue to ask this question apparently have not been following the situation, because Rome has not made them any such offer. It's also worth noting that it was Vatican II who left Tradition, not the Society, and I'm sure even you would agree with this. So if the Society never left Tradition, why should they care about being "regularized" with Rome?
I heard a sermon today by Fr. Rostand-a very good sermon, by a priest I greatly respect- that said, in essence that that is what a recognition would imply. How do we in good conscience refuse that?
Not to sound rude, but Fr. Rostand is naive. Did you read his interview where he suggested that Benedict perhaps wants the Society to come in so they can help resolve the crisis in the Church? I've already given my reasons for why that's baloney in the "An Analysis of a deal between the SSPX and Rome" thread I started yesterday. Benedict does not care about sorting out this crisis, and his actions and words have made that quite clear.
The only alternative is to go sedevacantist-something that I would never do for fear of losing my immortal soul.
So if the Society doesn't strike a deal with Rome, the only alternative is to go sedevacantist? Really? Isn't there also the option of just staying away from Rome like they did from 1988 to 2008?
-
Brainglitch, why are you so ardently anti-novus ordo????
Because I used to be novus ordo. I've seen crazy Masses, seen the massive difference between the true Mass and the Bugnini concoction, seen good holy priests stuck in the Novus Ordo structure being shunted to tiny out of the way parishes, being threatened with psychiatric evaluations and "therapy", being forced into retirement, all for trying to teach traditional Church teachings....... the faithful being taught lies.....I've seen it all.
-
Brainglitch, in another thread you said you thought the Novus Ordo Mass is "from hell" or at least "hellish".
You do still think so, right?
-
Brainglitch, in another thread you said you thought the Novus Ordo Mass is "from hell" or at least "hellish".
You do still think so, right?
Yes.....it may be valid if said "correctly", but it is not inherently pleasing to God.
Even a satanic "Black mass" can be "valid" if the consecration is done "correctly". Doesn't make it good, and neither does it make the novus ordo good.
-
So why would you even want to be attached to it? Why trust Bishop Fellay who is bringing you to at least say, the novus ordo is valid. That is a lie on the part of most SSPX faithful, therefore he wants the faithful to lie, even a lie is an offence to God, especially when it comes to His Church.
Matthew is correct it is a war on the part of SSPX.
-
So why would you even want to be attached to it? Why trust Bishop Fellay who is bringing you to at least say, the novus ordo is valid. That is a lie on the part of most SSPX faithful, therefore he wants the faithful to lie, even a lie is an offence to God, especially when it comes to His Church.
Matthew is correct it is a war on the part of SSPX.
It is your opinion that the novus ordo is invalid. Since I disagree with your opinion I am not a liar. Neither is Bishop Fellay on that issue. You are not the arbiter of truth, especially on a doubtful matter.
-
IMHO I think the time to even listen to the supporters of +Fellay is OVER.
After the letter of the 3 Bishops, the scandalous interview of +Fellay to CNS and the sermons of Frs. Chazal & Pffeifer; I think we should just attack their errors period.
---
Why don't they just join the FSSP and leave us the heck alone???
-
If the Pope gives the Society full and complete freedom to criticize Vatican II, while simultaneously giving us canonical recognition and full freedom to operate-how do we refuse? I heard a sermon today by Fr. Rostand-a very good sermon, by a priest I greatly respect- that said, in essence that that is what a recognition would imply. How do we in good conscience refuse that?
Haven't you read what Bishop Fellay said about Vatican II recently? If he has freedom to criticize the Council, why was he defending it?
-
So why would you even want to be attached to it? Why trust Bishop Fellay who is bringing you to at least say, the novus ordo is valid. That is a lie on the part of most SSPX faithful, therefore he wants the faithful to lie, even a lie is an offence to God, especially when it comes to His Church.
Matthew is correct it is a war on the part of SSPX.
It is your opinion that the novus ordo is invalid. Since I disagree with your opinion I am not a liar. Neither is Bishop Fellay on that issue. You are not the arbiter of truth, especially on a doubtful matter.
It's Myrna's opinion that the N.O. is invalid.
It's your opinion that not only the N.O. but maybe even a black mass (which is intended to be a mockery) may also actually be valid.
So, Brainglitch, if the N.O. mass is valid, and you still call it "hellish" then what gives here?
Why are you so hateful toward the novus ordo since you think it's valid?
Is it all just "opinion" to you?
-
So why would you even want to be attached to it? Why trust Bishop Fellay who is bringing you to at least say, the novus ordo is valid. That is a lie on the part of most SSPX faithful, therefore he wants the faithful to lie, even a lie is an offence to God, especially when it comes to His Church.
Matthew is correct it is a war on the part of SSPX.
It is your opinion that the novus ordo is invalid. Since I disagree with your opinion I am not a liar. Neither is Bishop Fellay on that issue. You are not the arbiter of truth, especially on a doubtful matter.
It's Myrna's opinion that the N.O. is invalid.
It's your opinion that not only the N.O. but maybe even a black mass (which is intended to be a mockery) may also actually be valid.
So, Brainglitch, if the N.O. mass is valid, and you still call it "hellish" then what gives here?
Why are you so hateful toward the novus ordo since you think it's valid?
Is it all just "opinion" to you?
Thats right Brainglitch if I agreed with you, we would both be wrong.
-
So why would you even want to be attached to it? Why trust Bishop Fellay who is bringing you to at least say, the novus ordo is valid. That is a lie on the part of most SSPX faithful, therefore he wants the faithful to lie, even a lie is an offence to God, especially when it comes to His Church.
Matthew is correct it is a war on the part of SSPX.
It is your opinion that the novus ordo is invalid. Since I disagree with your opinion I am not a liar. Neither is Bishop Fellay on that issue. You are not the arbiter of truth, especially on a doubtful matter.
It's Myrna's opinion that the N.O. is invalid.
It's your opinion that not only the N.O. but maybe even a black mass (which is intended to be a mockery) may also actually be valid.
So, Brainglitch, if the N.O. mass is valid, and you still call it "hellish" then what gives here?
Why are you so hateful toward the novus ordo since you think it's valid?
Is it all just "opinion" to you?
It is hellish precisely because it has (in at least some cases) a valid consecration, and because it is in the case of the novus ordo a mockery of the true sacrifice, and in the case of the black mass a mockery of God far more grave.
Sacramental validity does not always equal good. The actual confection of the sacrament may be good, but the circuŠ¼stances are appalling.
-
So why would you even want to be attached to it? Why trust Bishop Fellay who is bringing you to at least say, the novus ordo is valid. That is a lie on the part of most SSPX faithful, therefore he wants the faithful to lie, even a lie is an offence to God, especially when it comes to His Church.
Matthew is correct it is a war on the part of SSPX.
It is your opinion that the novus ordo is invalid. Since I disagree with your opinion I am not a liar. Neither is Bishop Fellay on that issue. You are not the arbiter of truth, especially on a doubtful matter.
It's Myrna's opinion that the N.O. is invalid.
It's your opinion that not only the N.O. but maybe even a black mass (which is intended to be a mockery) may also actually be valid.
So, Brainglitch, if the N.O. mass is valid, and you still call it "hellish" then what gives here?
Why are you so hateful toward the novus ordo since you think it's valid?
Is it all just "opinion" to you?
Thats right Brainglitch if I agreed with you, we would both be wrong.
So your opinions on doubtful matter are identical with doctrine?
-
In my case it is more than an opinion, and I have no doubt, that the Chair of Peter is missing a Catholic pope. You can call that whatever you want, and furthermore I think you are a plant sent here to confuse the SSPX faithful.
That of course IS an opinion!
-
It's Myrna's opinion that the N.O. is invalid.
It's your opinion that not only the N.O. but maybe even a black mass (which is intended to be a mockery) may also actually be valid.
So, Brainglitch, if the N.O. mass is valid, and you still call it "hellish" then what gives here?
Why are you so hateful toward the novus ordo since you think it's valid?
Is it all just "opinion" to you?
Not defending brainglitch, but there is a difference between validity and licitness. A sacrament can be valid but illicit (e.g. schismatic sacraments, lay baptisms outside the case of necessity, etc.). So the Novus Ordo Mass can be said to be doubtfully valid, but undoubtedly illicit and displeasing to God (a position I hold, incidentally).
-
In my case it is more than an opinion, and I have no doubt, that the Chair of Peter is missing a Catholic pope. You can call that whatever you want, and furthermore I think you are a plant sent here to confuse the SSPX faithful.
That of course IS an opinion!
Yes, when in doubt, resort to ad hominems. The charge is so false that I will not even attempt to dispute it.
I would side with Williamson and Mallerais over Fellay, even if it meant excommunication, IF it became clear that an agreement is damaging to the Faith.You may think it is clear already, but I do not. That is an opinion, and we are certainly free to disagree on the matter. However, do not call me a heretic because I disagree with you.
-
It's Myrna's opinion that the N.O. is invalid.
It's your opinion that not only the N.O. but maybe even a black mass (which is intended to be a mockery) may also actually be valid.
So, Brainglitch, if the N.O. mass is valid, and you still call it "hellish" then what gives here?
Why are you so hateful toward the novus ordo since you think it's valid?
Is it all just "opinion" to you?
Not defending brainglitch, but there is a difference between validity and licitness. A sacrament can be valid but illicit (e.g. schismatic sacraments, lay baptisms outside the case of necessity, etc.). So the Novus Ordo Mass can be said to be doubtfully valid, but undoubtedly illicit and displeasing to God (a position I hold, incidentally).
That is essentially what I meant.
One small thing: I notice that many children raised in a traditional milieu have very little idea of the dangers of the new mass, simply because they have never seen it. Such children are in danger of losing their fear of what it is. They should know what it is, to understand better what we are fighting for, and the evils that modernism can lead to.
-
In my case it is more than an opinion
More than an opinion? Says who? What legitimate authority of the Church has announced "Sedevacantism is true and binding on all Catholics!".
Archbishop Lefebvre certainly said no such thing.
-
Let me clarify!
In my case it is more than an opinion, other sedevacantist may have a doubt, but I don't.
-
Let me clarify!
In my case it is more than an opinion, other sedevacantist may have a doubt, but I don't.
You have no doubts? Great!
But does that make your position binding on everyone else? Does it mean it is objectively true?
If I believed that the moon was made out of blue cheese, and I had no doubts-would that make it true? Would everyone else have to believe as I do?
In matters that are objectively doubtful, such as sedevacantism, Catholics may hold varying opinions. Just because you subjectively have no doubts, does not mean that the matter is not objectively doubtful
-
Don't concern yourself the people here on cathinfo are not that easily influenced by myself or you for that matter. They are gounded in the Faith and are not going to step backward.
So your wasting your time trying to scare people here about sedevacantism, and double speaking your loyalty for Tradition and the novis ordo validy.
-
It is hellish precisely because it has (in at least some cases) a valid consecration, and because it is in the case of the novus ordo a mockery of the true sacrifice, and in the case of the black mass a mockery of God far more grave.
Sacramental validity does not always equal good. The actual confection of the sacrament may be good, but the circuŠ¼stances are appalling.
If this is so, tell me again why you don't just go to the local novus ordo parish? Your mere disapproval of the aesthetics involved shouldn't stand in the way of partaking of "valid" sacraments.
Are there rubrics for a black mass?
It's not too late to confess. You are a novus ordite.